United States v. Doyle Paroline
701 F.3d 749
5th Cir.2012Background
- En banc Fifth Circuit clarifies §2259 restitution; proximate-cause applies only to §2259(b)(3)(F) and not to (A)-(E).
- Amy, a child-pornography victim, sought full restitution for future treatment and lost income; district court denied.
- Wright case involved similar restitution request for Amy; district court awarded portion and reasons were unclear.
- CVRA grants crime victims mandamus relief, not a direct right of appeal; Government retains appeal rights.
- Court adopts two-step framework: (i) identify victim, (ii) award full losses under §2259(b)(3) limiting only (F) by proximate-cause.
- Remands: Paroline (vacate) for restitution consistent with holding; Wright (affirm) on legality but remanded for amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §2259 require proximate causation for all losses? | Amy: proximate-causation applies to all categories (A)-(F). | Paroline/Wright: proximate-cause should limit all losses under §2259. | proximate cause limited to (F); full losses in (A)-(E) required |
| Does CVRA grant crime victims a direct right of appeal? | Amy seeks direct appeal under CVRA. | Government retains appeal rights; CVRA does not grant victims a direct appeal. | CVRA does not provide a direct appeal; mandamus review only |
| How should restitution be calculated when multiple offenders contribute to a victim's losses? | Victim entitled to full amount from each offender under §3664(h). | Limit liability or apportion among defendants to reflect contribution. | District court may either award full amount or apportion under §3664(h); discretion allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1920) (rule of last antecedent; proximate-cause interpretation guidance)
- Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (U.S. 2005) (limits of modifying clauses in lists; cautions against overbreadth)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (rule of the last antecedent applied to statutory interpretation)
- Monzel v. United States, 641 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (proximate-cause requirement for §2259; collective causation discussed)
- Burgess v. United States, 684 F.3d 445 (4th Cir. 2012) (proximate cause and apportionment under §3664(h))
- Laney v. United States, 189 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1999) (broad restitutionary purpose of §2259)
- Crandon v. United States, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (broad restitutionary interpretation of §2259)
- Kearney v. United States, 672 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (proximate cause in collective-harm context)
- United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2012) (proximate cause discussion in restitution context)